Brock v. State
This text of 178 So. 548 (Brock v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Counsel for the petitioner, in brief, concede the correctness of the opinion of the Court of Appeals as to exceptions to things stated in the oral charge, but insist that the exception complained of was “not merely to something stated but mainly and directly to things not stated or improperly omitted by the trial court from its oral charge.”
“If the oral charge was not as full and instructive as plaintiff’s counsel desired, he could have requested the giving of written charges elucidating and explaining his theory of the case from a legal standpoint and urged error on the part of the court in refusing same; but we do not, as a rule, pass on things the trial court did not say in the oral charge.” Sudduth v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 201 Ala. 56, 77 So. 350, 351; Williams v. State, 147 Ala. 10, 41 So. 992.
The writ is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
178 So. 548, 235 Ala. 304, 1938 Ala. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brock-v-state-ala-1938.